>> good morning. today we are going to vote on senator sessions nomination to serve as attorney general. after we look on senator sessions, we will turn to legislation and other committee housekeeping business on the agenda. i would like to mention a few things before we proceed. except for the ranking member, i will ask everyone to try to limit the remarks to five minutes. that is how i handle lynch's nomination and by my count, every democrat on this committee except for two that i know about, has already announced that the intent to oppose the nomination so there is no mystery how this thing

may go today. as far as the final vote is concerned. with everyone's cooperation we should be able to move forward in an orderly way. three weeks ago senator sessions testified before this committee. for more than 10 hours. throughout that testimony, the american people had the opportunity to hear and learn directly from senator sessions. what all of us on this committee already knew to be true because we have served with him for so long. he knows the department better than any nominee for attorney general in recent memory. he is a man of integrity. he is a man of his word. and most importantly, he will enforce the law regardless of whether he would have supported passage of that law as a member of the senate.

he explained that he enthusiastically prepared, he is prepared to set aside his role as the legislator and adopt a new role as our chief law enforcement officer. and he told us, he will execute that law with strength, with integrity and with independence in order to provide for equal justice for all. that is precisely what we want and and attorney general. equal and fair application of the law. his answers to written questions made all of this more clear. and i might add, they were quite a few written questions given to him in addition to what was, went on during those 10 hours. senator sessions answered

roughly 700 written questions including over 350 questions from members who announced that they would vote against his nomination even before they submitted a single written question. one consistent thread that ran through all of his answers is this, he will follow the law. regardless of whether he would have supported it as a matter of policy as a senator. the written testimony that we heard at his hearing tells the same story. we heard from witnesses concerned that the attorney general must provide full and fair law enforcement. and then we heard from witnesses who have known senator sessions personally and worked for and with him for decades. those witnesses included former attorney general -- former

deputy attorney general johnson and lawyers that have worked with senator sessions for a long period of time. all of those witnesses who actually know senator sessions said in effect, the same thing. if you are concerned with securing the strong and equal enforcement of the laws, you should look no further than senator sessions to find and attorney general that is up to the task. the a number of questions about policy positions he has taken as a legislator. that is good and well. but the test is not whether or not you agree with the policy position senator sessions may have taken as a legislator. i'm going to refer to a ranking member feinstein said in her

opening statement at the hearing on this question. the test is whether senator sessions as attorney general will uphold the laws he voted against as senator.on issue after issue senator sessions made clear that he will, it is important to recall with senator sessions said in this regard quote ãthe office of attorney general of the united states is not a normal political office. and anyone who holds it must have total fidelity to the laws and the constitution of the united states. and anyone on this committee republican or democrat knows senator sessions to be a man of integrity and a man of his word. because we know him to be a man

of his word, we know that he will uphold and enforce all laws equally without regard to persons just as he pledged. i will take a second and address a few questions concerning executive orders mentioned by the president. some on the other side of the concerns about senator sessions whether he was involved in drafting a reviewing the executive orders. it is not clear to me why it would be a problem even if he had been involved. but the fact of the matter is he was not involved. in his written responses to senator leahy, senator sessions stated for the record quote ã neither i or any of my current staff had a role in formulating or drafting the executive

orders. ranking member feinstein also asked about the department role more specifically the office of legal consult. of course, as we all know, senator sessions is not yet attorney general. he is not yet running the department because now leslie ã three weeks and over 700 written questions after his hearing, this committee is still debating his nomination. to me this underscores that we should not needlessly delay this vote any further. the department needs strong leadership. it needs it in place as soon as possible. i would also like to take a moment to address a criticism i have heard senator sessions that i believe is particularly unfair. as i have said, it is fine to ask senator sessions policy questions about legislation.

but to imply that because he had a principled objection to a provision in a particular bill, that he therefore did not support the underlying purpose of that legislation, and that sort of on approach is unfair. intercessions has been repeatedly criticized for voting against the democrat version of the 2013 violence against women act. of course his credits routinely failed to mention ãstronger provisions for grant accountability and tougher penalties for abuse. and of course critics also conveniently failed to mention that senator sessions supported violence against women act reauthorization before when it was brought up in 2005. so to claim that he did not

support the underlying purpose of that legislation is just a rhetorical trick. it is an unfair one. maybe even mean-spirited. and i will explain this. we all know that members of this committee on both sides of the aisle disagree on bills of all sorts for reasons at different times. every democrat in this committee opposed my version of that legislation which included mandatory minimums to combat child pornography and assault. are we then to conclude that members who oppose my amendment are not concerned about child pornography? of course we should not make that accusation. well what about debates we have had over the years about legislation that included the death penalty? when members oppose legislation to combat terrorism because that legislation includes the death penalty, would it be fair for us to claim that those members do not care about

protecting the nation against terrorism? of course not. if we were to do that that would be shameful. there are members of this committee who have principles objections to mandatory minimums and the death penalty. by and large i disagree with those policy positions. but they are just that. policy disagreements. we can and should have those debates. but we should have them in good faith. not imputes ãto another senator that we know they do not possess that motive. rather than focus on policy disputes that we have had over the years, i think it is more productive to consider some of the important questions ranking member feinstein asked at the beginning of our hearing. questions about whether he, senator sessions, as attorney general being an independent holder of that office, who will

enforce the law in a fair and evenhanded way? those are the right questions to ask. first, will senator sessions enforce a law he voted against? or his his answer. quote ãit is passed by congress.it would be the duty of the attorney general. whether they voted for or supported it to defend it. another important question. will he use the awesome power of the attorney general fairly? will he be spent law and the constitution? senator sessions answered quote ãthe office of attorney general and the united states is not a normal political office. and anyone who holds it must have total fidelity to the law and the cost of the united states.

and a final crucial question, will he be independent? will he tell the president know when necessary and faithfully enforce ethics laws and constitutional restrictions. senator sessions answered precisely as an independent attorney general should. he said, the attorney general quote ãmust be willing to tell the president and other top officials no. if they overreach he or she should not be a rubberstamp. senator sessions has assured us that he will faithfully enforce the laws fully, fairly and independently. these answers combined with his life of public service and his experience working with each of us, assures me that senator sessions will make an

outstanding attorney general. i am pleased to support his nomination and will be pleased to cast my vote in favor of his confirmation. i urge my colleagues to do the same thing. before i go to senator feinstein, in regard to other items on the agenda, our staffs are continuing work on an agreement on updates to the committee rules. so we will hold those rules over this week. the final item on the agenda for the elder abuse prevention and prosecution act. a bill that this committee reported unanimous in the last september. senator blumenthal and died last year collaborated closely on it. after i chaired a hearing before the committee which we learn of scams targeting seniors are widespread and growing. this bill tackles the financial exploitation of older americans which has been called the crime of the 21st century. it will be held over.

senator feinstein. >> kinky very much mr. chairman. thank you for your remarks. i listened very carefully to them. in essence in a way my remarks i think respond to yours. i have respect for you as you know. i differ in some of the conclusions but so be it. we have now had the opportunity to observe the first full week of the trump administration. at this time we've seen a lorry of executive orders and presidential declarations like none before. some broad, some seemingly unconstitutional, some unenforceable.and all deeply concerning in their intent and legality. specifically the president has issued six executive orders. 10 presidential memoranda or directives in the first week of his administration. for a total of 16 major

administrative actions. among these, the president has issued a sweeping order to undermine the affordable care act. prohibited funding to any international aid group for simply providing information to patients about abortion. suggested a 20 percent tax on exports from mexico to pay for a border wall. and was egregiously issued multiple executive orders on immigration. not one order, idea or pronouncement was meant to bring this country together. they only serve to tear the country further apart. it is in these contexts, this context with these events that we are being asked consider this nomination. the president's nominee, a colleague of ours for some 20 years, is well known for his positions and point of view. he has been a campaign partisan for the president. he has reinforced and supported

trump mission. he has attended at least 45 trump campaign events. he wore the hat, he was a leading voice and during the campaign he spoke a large rallies. smiling while crowds chanted lock her up. then in october of last year, at one of the presidential debates, and again at a rally in virginia, candidate trump repeatedly reference him as my attorney general. it is very difficult to reconcile for me, the independence and objectivity necessary for the position of attorney general. with a partisanship this nominee has demonstrated. in fact, as referred to mr. chairman, just yesterday, the "washington post" ran a story chronicling this nominee's involvement and connection to

the president, his team and their first acts. the post declared the directives more trump's name give another man's fingerprints. jeff sessions. the article continues. these are the quotes. during the transition quote ã sessions became a daily presence at trump tower in new york. mapping out the policy agenda. and making personnel decisions. quote ãauthored many trumps executive orders. stephen miller. a sessions confidant who was mentored by him and he spent the weekend overseeing the government's implementation of the refugee been. the tactician turning trumps direction into law.dearborn processions long-term chief of

staff and the senate. the mastermind behind donald trump's brand of populism is stephen bannon. who promoted sessions for years.as chairman of the breitbart website. the post went on to report that senator sessions quote ã lobbied for a shock and awe period. they would impressed donald trump space. -- finally, in a lengthy email for this story, steve bannon describes sessions as and i quote ãthe fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter in congress of donald trump's agenda. and said that sessions quote ã has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy

and philosophy. to undergird the implementation of that agenda. if this is true, how could we possibly conclude that this nominee will be independent? i myself asked him that question. and just got back the response. and it was denied. but there are names cited, there is a post article to read, it seems to me it is either true or false. the executive order issued last friday is a case in point. the executive order temporarily bans the entry of persons from seven muslim majority countries.it halts all refugees admissions. i believe the broad order goes against our core values. it disregards our obligations under international agreements. it undermines critical protection in the constitution.

and it effectively bans one religion. the muslim faith. already this weekend, we saw confusion and protests at airports across the country. press reports have stated that between 100 and 200 people were detained in american airports and more than 300 were not allowed to board planes to the united states from foreign airports. including my home state of california. in addition, the order effectively bars entry of people ranging from iraqi translators who helped american soldiers for years in iraq to syrian refugees fleeing horrible violence. and for people with approved leaders and dual nationals, the question is ãif confirmed, what will this nominee do?

will he support and defend these broad and disruptive executive orders? will he carry out and enforce the president's actions that may very well violate the constitution? if past is prologue to the future is not difficult to assess that he will. one short year and two months ago, on december 7 2015, then candidate donald trump issued a press release. calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states. three days later, on december 10, 2015 senator leahy, demented into my left, authored a resolution in the judiciary committee. here is what it stated. quote ãit is the sense of the senate that the united states must not bar individuals entering into the united states

based on their religion. as such actions would be contrary to the fundamental principles in which this nation was founded. the vote was 16 ãfour.in favor of the lahey resolution. the chairman and the majority of republicans gentlemen voted for but the nominee voted no. in fact, he spoke for nearly 30 minutes against it.he had to know that this type of van would raise serious constitutional questions. he had to know it was effectively unenforceable. but he supported it anyway. this no vote speaks volumes. but it was certainly not the last word. according to the "washington post" and again i quote ãfrom

immigration and healthcare to national security and trade, sessions is the intellectual godfather of the president's policies. sessions reach extends to the white house with aides and allies accelerating the president's most dramatic moves. including a ban on refugees and citizens from seven mostly muslim nations that had triggered fear around the globe. now, if it were just this one article by the post, just one campaign events, just one vote, maybe there would be an open question. but there are many disturbing actions.and statements throughout his record. let me name some of them. i am also concerned about the president's repeated calls for an investigation into voter fraud. simply because he lost the popular vote by 3 million. and again, last week the white house press secretary

reiterated the president's beliefs that there was widespread voter fraud. in this past election. and that millions of illegal votes were cast. with no evidence whatsoever. what will this attorney general nominee do? will he is the awesome power of the department of justice? and spend taxpayer dollars to launch partisan investigations into voter fraud? or will he use his position to defend the voting rights of millions of americans? when asked about voter fraud by senator franken, senator sessions responded that he believes and i quote ãwe regularly have fraudulent activity occur during election cycles.

in reality these names have been repeatedly debunked. even isolated cases have found the extremely rare. this past december, excuse me ã the "washington post" reviewed the 2016 election. out of 135 million people voting, they found four documented cases of voter fraud. if confirmed, what will senator sessions do when faced with questions on reproductive rights? this is an issue of real importance. to a dominant majority of women in this country. at this hearing, i asked directly if it is still his view that roe versus wade is quote ãone of the worst colossally erroneous supreme court decisions of all time.

he said quote ãit is. he said he will quote ãrespect roe versus wade. but believes the decision quote ãviolated the constitution. as attorney general, who says he believes a woman's well established fundamental rights are unconstitutional, is essentially inviting states to pass more restrictions to women's access to healthcare. knowing full well that the justice department may in fact support those in court. in fact, i asked whether the justice department under his leadership, would seek to overturn roe or change precedent on reproductive rights.

he left the door open by saying and i quote ãsuch decisions would depend upon the unique circumstances of the case or cases as they arise. i will not prejudge the issues. and when asked by senator blumenthal whether he believes a woman should be punished for having an abortion, as the president said during the campaign, senator sessions could have given a simple no answer. but he did not. he refused to rule out punishment for women. instead, he merely noted that while the supreme court had upheld the right to an abortion, that right had been limited by various state and federal statutes. quote ãmany of which have been upheld as constitutional. and noted that his role as

attorney general would be to faithfully and force all laws. he clearly left open the possibility that he would enforce laws that punish women. the final issue i would like to touch on mr. chairman, is a civil liberties. ever since 9/11 we have had an intense struggle. between civil liberties and national security. i think people know i believe in strong national security. but it also, i believe we should never sacrifice our values or fundamental constitutional rights as americans. it is clear from the record, the nominee believes otherwise. senator sessions was one of only nine senators in 2005 to vote against the detainee treatment act. which contained senator mccain's and my bipartisan amendment that prohibited

cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment for individuals in american custody. in 2008 on the senate floor, he praised a prior attorney general for refusing to rule out the use of waterboarding in the future. and claimed enhanced interrogation techniques were necessary to stop additional terrorist plots. specifically he stated, and i quote ãi am glad attorney general ãis able to say waterboarding was utilized only three times and that it had not been used in five years. but i am glad he also said he would not say it would never be done again. that is not true. in fact, one detainee alone was subjected to waterboarding 183 times. and as the senate intelligence

committees extensive study on the cia interrogation program revealed, the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques particularly waterboarding, were and are ineffective and did not produce actionable intelligence. in the summer of 2016, the nominee was one of 21 senators to vote against prohibiting waterboarding and other techniques not found in the army field manual. he has even expressed support for the detention of americans captured on american soil to be held without charge or trial. these positions, give me no confidence the nominee will uphold our laws and civil liberties as attorney general. mr. chairman, today we are being asked to vote on the one

person who will be the department of justice and its 113,000 employees charged with defending the interests of the united states according to our nation's laws. and ensuring fair and impartial administration. a justice for all americans. we are being asked to put on a nominee that will have to stand up to the president who is clearly willing to ignore the laws and even issue orders in violation of the constitution. we are being asked to determine whether this nominee is record demonstrates that he will have the objectivity to enforce the law for all americans and be an independent attorney general and not an minus of the white house. yesterday early in the evening we clearly saw what a truly independent attorney general

does. sally yates, the acting attorney general who enjoyed broad bipartisan support when she was confirmed as deputy attorney general, declared that under her leadership the department could not defend donald trump's executive order on immigrants and refugees. here is what she wrote. and it is important. and i quote ãmy responsibility is to ensure that the position of the department of justice is not only legally defensible but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all of the facts. in addition, i am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institutions solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. at present, i am not convinced

that the events of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am i convinced that the executive order is lawful. consequently, for as long as i am the attorney general, the department of justice will not present arguments in defense of the executive order. unless until i become convinced that it is appropriate to do so. members, that statement took guts. that statement said what an independent attorney general should do. that statement took a steel spine to stand up and say no. it took the courage of elliot richardson and william ãwho stood up to president nixon. that is what in attorney general must be willing and able to do. i have no confidence that senator sessions will do that. instead, he has been the

fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter in congress of the trump agenda and has played a critical role in the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda. with this in mind, i must vote no. thank you. >> senator hatch. >> thank you mr. chairman. i enthusiastically support the nomination of our colleague and longtime member of this committee senator jeff sessions to be the next attorney general of the united states. his qualifications for the position are unmatched in american history. none of the previous 83 us attorneys general had his experience in both developing and implement a criminal justice policy. as i reviewed the widespread support for his nomination i was struck by the strong relationship between support for him and knowledge about him.

the longer and better people knew jeff sessions the more they support his nomination. mr. chairman, one of the letters we received was from judge lewis bray. one known to all of us as the director of the fbi under president bill clinton. he writes quote ãi have served and interacted with senator sessions for over 25 years. and have always been greatly impressed with his commitment to the rule of law, fair and balanced prosecutorial judgment and his personal dedication to protecting civil rights. i believe that jeff will be an outstanding attorney general for the nation. another example comes from our former colleague the late senator specter. he served for many years on the committee including as chairman. it was one of my friends. more than 20 years after he voted against the 1986 nomination to the us district court, the senator said this was in one vote, more than 10,000 that he regretted.

what changed his mind? is simple. he served with jeff sessions, he got to know jeff sessions and he saw the real jeff sessions in action. the confirmation process for this nomination has been very revealing. senator sessions critics for example appear to believe that an attorney general at least, a republican attorney general, cannot fairly enforce laws he personally opposes or may have voted against. i reject that notion.and i am confident he would think differently at the senator from their side of the aisle where one day nominated to this position. if anything, basing decisions on political rather than legal factors is becoming the hallmark of previous administrations, justice department.they reneged on their commitment to defend in court laws that congress enacted not because there were no reasonable arguments to defend the laws, but because

the administration politically oppose them. imagine if senator sessions said that he planned to be the arbiter of whether statutes were executive branch actions were right or just. imagine if he had said that the justice department would defend only those that he deemed to be wise. i can hear the house of protest, combination and opposition. thankfully, he is not so arrogant as that. senator sessions critics are at least some of the most vocal. also seem to care nothing for the actual facts of senator sessions record. they refused to tell the truth even about something as simple as the support for the violence against women act. the desk he supported in 2000, 2005 and again in 2013. mr. chairman, senator sessions is honorable. he is fair, a man of the highest integrity. i think we all know that. he is committed to the rule of law, loves the justice department and has the experience to leave it in the

right direction. all i can say is that i ãthe fact that we might differ on some interpretations of the law, does not mean the person is not good or cannot do the job in the justice department. the fact is i do not know many people that have the qualifications that jeff sessions has. and no attorney general that have had the amount of experience before him that he will have had. i'll i can say is he is a man of integrity, a decent man and i hope we can pass into this committee. >> senator leahy. >> excuse me, thank you. mr. chairman. you know, it is almost as though we were discussing two different people here. maybe that is because it is a strange year.

certainly the strangest i have seen in the years i have been here in

she sets a high standard for the nation. i called her this morning and told her that. i'm also remembering the question she was asked by

senator sessions. under oath. she was asked, would you be willing to stand up to a president? would you be willing to tell a president when he is wrong? those of us around this table remember that. and under oath, she said she would. she kept her word. she upheld her role. she did what she was supposed to do. senator feinstein mentioned earlier, richardson, they did the same. i knew them both. they are people of integrity and i know sally yates as a person of integrity. despite the president's strong interest in implementing a muslim man as he promised in his campaign, miss yates

concluded an executive order was not legally defensible. this is not a surprising conclusion. the executive order discriminates by design. it is wrong, i believe it is illegal. several federal courts i've already found that president trumps orders are likely unconstitutional. but miss yates while defending the rule of law -- demonstrates exactly why having an independent attorney general is so important. this is why we have to be so careful. in selecting our next attorney general. understand what is happening here. i have been here with numerous

administrations. republican and democratic. one of my first roll call vote was for a republican attorney general. william french smith. and then, i declared i would vote for the attorney general ã we had a voice. but these are people i thought would be then the independence of the justice department.as a young law student, i and two or three others ãwe were interviewed by the then attorney general. we asked similar questions about how independent the

attorney general could be. could they be independent if it is in the interest of justice, independent of the president of the united states. and as a young law student, i will never forget the response. he said it would have to do, what do you do if someone commits a crime? they will have to take action. the attorney general did that in a celebrated case where the prosecuted someone from illinois. who had been vital in the election of the president who appointed him. the president who appointed him was his brother. this was attorney general robert kennedy. he prosecuted.

he showed the independence of the department of justice. president trump has placed the independence of the justice department at stake. he has put the department on notice. if you adhere to your oath of office, to defend the constitution, then you risk your job. that, no president should say to the department of justice. at this critical time we need an attorney general that can stand up to the president. someone with fidelity to the rule of law. not a political ideology. someone who will support the thousands of career prosecutors in the department, people who are republicans or democrats or have no political affiliation. the career prosecutors.they serve our nation, they defend the constitution without fear or favor. now there is something looming

over this nomination. i suspect is on the minds of both republicans and democrats. the fact is we are debating they should be in attorney general and the trump administration. this is an administration that needed only one week, only one week to find is on the losing side of an argument in federal court. i have been here with president ford, carter, reagan, clinton, bush, both president bush's. president obama. never ever seen anything like that. the fact, the administration

unpredictability, recklessness, extreme agenda casts a shadow over all of the president's nominees and that includes senator sessions. now i was a junior member on this committee 31 years ago when jeff sessions was nominated to the federal judgeship. this committee and the majority was chaired by republican strong government. it was a committee on a bipartisan basis that rejected his nomination. we are not confident that he would be a fair judge. i am not basing my decisions on that case. that was then, we are talking about something different. today we are considering senator sessions for a different role. he is nominated to be the chief law enforcement officer of the united states. not the chief law enforcement officer of the president, the

chief law enforcement officer of the united states. that includes every one of us. attorney general has to be independent, he must faithfully serve all americans. and i carefully ãi find it hard to remember when i reviewed a nominees records so thoroughly as i have this. i reviewed his extensive record, his responses to serious questions asked by the committee. i'm not convinced he meets the standard. and so i have to oppose this nomination. nothing to do with friendship with senator sessions. someone that i have known what it has to do with whether he would be the kind of independent person we need as the attorney general for all

the country. i have a very serious doubts incident sessions being an independent attorney general. let me give you a few reasons why. there have been months of media coverage about president trumps many conflicts of interest. and the constitutional concerns it presents. months it has been in the press. a senator sessions has been repeatedly invading my questions on this topic. he is not studied the issue. he even refused to acknowledge the conflict of interest for president to have a personal financial state and policies pursued by his administration. that is the very definition of conflict of interest. that is comfort of interest 101. a president should not personally profit from the

decisions. this is willful blindness. on the part of senator sessions. to the extent even to running interference in our democracy. i have some serious questions. we talked about the intelligence community's report of russian activities and intentions and recent us elections. most of the report has been made public. some have not been made public but they have been available to the senators. those who serve the distinction on the intelligence committee like feinstein know. he has answered some questions by saying i have not reviewed the report. i have no reason not to accept

the intelligence community's conclusions as contained in the report. so i asked him whether the activities describe in the report are illegal or ãthat is not a difficult question.the answer should be an obvious yes. senator sessions is not willing to even acknowledge things that make president trump uncomfortable. how can we believe that attorney general would ever be able to say no to president trump? as attorneys general of both parties have been able to do in the past. senator sessions record on civil rights is lack of independence, from president trump particularly leave me worried. -- nothing is more sacred in our democracy than the right to vote.

i know that is way vermonters feel. but senator sessions declared it is a good day for the south. and the shelby county decision was regarding ãand was passed by overwhelming ...

unconstitutional right after a unanimous fold the senators sometimes it's hard to get unanimous to say the sun rises in the east bu east but here wea unanimous vote. they rightfully condemned the conspiracy theory that millions caused last november. the white house quoted somebody. they hurt people ahead of them

saying well, they voted illegally. it turns out, however, this person isn't qualified to vote. millions of illegal votes by state officials have to count the votes of democrats and d. debunk this. it would be used as a justification to further but to vote for the minorities and the voting booths change, or things but outside places they could easily reach, but more

importantly, senator sessions again has refused to acknowledge a fundamental plainly visible fact. the written response doesn't know what day that the president might have relied upon. of course, there is no such da data. just admit that. you make up a fantasy it doesn't mean that it's real. the next thing we will hear is the unicorns voted. they raise important questions about the impartiality in matters involving the president. i asked him several times and i

remember he's under oath about the scenarios that have given clear conflicts of interest that he was merely a supporter during the campaign. senator sessions is selling himself short. he was widely reported in the campaign and just yesterday they called the administration's clearinghouse for the policy philosophy. the relationship appears to apply in the face of the justice department re- queues standards that codify the mandate recusal when an attorney has a close identification with elected officials rising from service as a principled advisor and

officials. so in fairness to senator sessions, if the language were to apply to the relationship he refused to say one way or another. now we fin find the independencf the justice department under siege coming and i find the lack of response to the unacceptable. they called jeff sessions a throwback because of the conduct on the issues. i said i would look at where he had been since that vote. since the committees bipartisan rejects the first nomination,

time and again when the rights are with them and have been debated in the senate, senator sessions hasn't sought to protect. too often he had been the only one in the way. in 2009, senator sessions exposed hate crime protections to women and lg bt individuals. groups that have been extraordinarily targeted based on who they are, and he stated i am not sure women are people with different sexual orientations that they cannot cn the discrimination.

i just don't see it. well, open your eyes and you will see it. talk to the police anywhere in this country, go anywhere in the country and you will see it. the planes are made in the bipartisan majority and the junior hate crimes prevention act is now law. the protections are needed more than ever. in fact, if you look at the fbi statistics, the individuals are more likely to be targeted by any minority group in the country. senator sessions also opposed a bipartisan 2013 lady crapo reauthorization legislation. they passed with a majority of

the republican senators during the hearing and in written questions senator sessions refused to commit to the constitutionality and said he needed to carefully study it. you recover deleted or recall if it is reasonably defensible? is the law of the land. no court struck it down. at the heritage foundation's blueprint that is being relied upon in the administration calls

for eliminating all grants. they explained why this issue is so important. we need an attorney general to continue the progress made since the passage of the involvement and committed to enforcing the law to ensure the most vulnerable victims of crime have come forward to seek accountability and access. the grants are a matter of life and death to many people across the country.

it's usually two or 3:00 in the morning. we didn't have the programs or place to go to seek the protection. they ordered autopsies, those are realities, and those are the realities. how could anybody turn their back on that x. or suggest that it should apply to only certain classes of women.

i never heard the police officer say that we cannot investigate this if we determine the victim is straight and not gay with a dead person is a citizen, not an immigrant. otherwise we can't seek the person and we need an attorney general that understands this. another issue that concerns me is the criminal justice report. i worked with a bipartisan group of senators on the committee to reduce the mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses.

there is still 80% of them and the bipartisan efforts have the strong support of the justice department and law enforcement but not senator sessions in the sentencing reform. if you are a wealthy white person working on wall street, the supplier comes with 200 or $300 worth of cocaine and you get a slap on the wrist and say how could such a wonderful person to something like this maybe they should serve three weekends a.

yielded by an equal amount of crack cocaine you will go to prison and if you think you will get a job when you get out. it gives me additional cause for concern. senator feinstein read an article that said the hard-line policy and executive orders said that the directors for with another man's fingerprints, there were the fear mongering and reporters and senator sessions is a clearinghouse for the policy philosophy in the trump administration.

he denied that he was involved in creating the illegal muslim band, and i will take him at his word that the views on this should come to no surprise in the committee. senator feinstein knows this. in 2015 i offered a simple resolution to express the sense of the senate. the united states last month bar individuals from entering into the united states based on their religion. that's pretty simple. they voted in support of the resolution. senator sessions opposed it. i find that concerning. we need an attorney general to stand in the way of religious discrimination, not one who endorses it. and believe me, the anti-muslim statements that are coming out of this administration have some

of the best people in our country. they are still unraveling what happened in québec city. we could drive in a matter from the home in vermont and my wife and i go there often. it's a beautiful city, very safe. we go there and practice french which is sometimes understood but it's a wonderful city. a peaceful city just totally safe. now, the [inaudible]

who claims to be a trump supporter and even more about this because this is not a country where you see such things. let's back off of this. my father told me stories when he was in his early teens and my grandfather died in vermont to seek work. but we've gone beyond that. that isn't who we are and if itt

isn't who we should be. one standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised. they already violated these rights. i don't think that describes senator sessions. so i will speak longer on the floor. i am not confident with the attorney general so mr. chairman, i would oppose this nomination but thank you for having us. >> [inaudible] [inaudible]

i'm 70-years-old and can make it on my own. [inaudible] those of you that asked me to intervene when speeches get too long, i'm not going to do that. first of all, the senator deserves special consideration because he is a longtime member of the committee and second, i've been in the committee for a long time and if you start raising issues on an important issue like this for the attorney generaattorneygeneral of the un, you end up spending more time arguing about it tha then you do letting somebody speak. so i hope that you will be tolerant every time somebody

goes longer than you think they should. >> i want to thank you for what you said about me. i would note however that republicans and democrats speakers and usually senator sessions was the one that spoke the longest of anybody. the colleagues on both sides of the aisle i never once asked them to stop. >> let me in good conscience and i should have said exactly what you said because you have been tolerant and all th in all the e been on the committee. >> it's an important vote. with that in mind, i will be quick. at the bottom line as i often disagree with president trump -- more than i thought i was in the first ten days -- even though we see the big issue is pretty much

the same coming into this occasion i find myself enthusiastically supporting this pic and let me tell you why. i think jeff sessions is qualified. he's held responsible positions in the mall and i find him to be qualified. i think that he's a good man and i like him. i disagree with him some guy found him to be a good man that would fight for what he believes that if you could enlist him as an ally, he will be there for you no matter the political consequences. what i tried to do wit it todayy goat is understand the elections matter and they voted because i thought they were qualified. a lot of colleagues on this site have a problem with wa loretta lynch because she believed in the executive order president obama issued about giving legal status to millions of illegal

immigrants the court ended up disagreeing and the attorney general lynch and the reason i didn't vote against her is because to me it was pretty clearly obvious that he overreach and i didn't expect her to come here until the courts ruled, so about his relationship to president trump, who do you expect him to pick? he can't do that anymore but who do you really expect the president to pick when it comes to something like this? [inaudible] [inaudible] so what was i saying?

jeff sessions isn't the first person to be close to the president and advise the president that winds up being the cabinet. that's going to be a test for us all going forward the fact that he is close to the president doesn't disqualify him at all that somebody is going to be president of the united states and take somebody they know and trust and share their worldview. the law on terror, i am tired of turning the war into a crime. bin laden's son-in-law that was captured i think in pakistan, i can't remember a couple years ago. the son-in-law was put on a navy ship for a couple of weeks sent to new york and read his miranda rights within two or three weeks of capture not held as an enemy combatant and given a life

sentence. here's what i would suggest he would stop that process and if we catch any new combatants in the future that we are not going to read them dumber and the rights, we will hold them and interrogate them consistent with the wall of the lan law of the e geneva convention and try to get her intelligence for the next attack. to my friends on the other side. for an insane policy that treats an al qaeda terrorist is somebody that stole your car. it has to dianne feinstein and i admiriadmired that we had this e up with a citizen can and cannot do. you can't join al qaeda and collaborate with them without consequence.

some versus rumsfeld was held as an enemy combatant and we can hold any one of our own as an enemy combatant if in fact he had been collaborating with the enemy and if you get to america you don't get rewarded for fully the wall works here even on the homeland so i think jeff sessions is right and senator feinstein is wrong. the bottom line about the job of the attorney general, i think jeff will follow the law. you mentioned the march where thousands of people came to protest president trump. you are right most of them were peaceful and around my house. apparently missed the hundreds

of thousands took to the streets just a few days ago and had a sincerely held opinion that roe v. wade is bad law. can you disagree, absolutely you can instill the attorney general at least i hope so because millions of americans still do but it is the law of the land. this is the one that gets me the most. i expect criticism to come our way on both sides of the aisle. i voted against senator leahy's proposal even though i'm very supportive of the concept to protect women because i didn't agree with this construct so i guess maybe i can't be the attorney general either. but john lewis, anybody deserves to be called a modern hero if he is john lewis to stand up against oppression and the time when a lot of people were not.

he came before the committee and made a pretty damning indictment of senator sessions. so here's what i ask my colleagues to do, look under the criticisms and see what you fi find. this is the same man that basically accused sarah palen and john mccain of having republican rallies that reminded him of george wallace's time. they are so indices of hatred and division and there is no need for this hostility and ourr political discourse. he went on to say that he never fired a gun that created the kind climate conditions and vicious attacks against americans that were simply trying to exercise constitutional rights because of the atmosphere of hate when the

church was burned in birmingham alabama. as both of you know, i am close to senator mccain. he had a chapter in one of his books and when asked, about three people that would seek their counsel and advice when he was running for president, john lewis was one of them. i don't think i've ever been more disappointed than when he said those things about my friend. it hurt him to his core. so i recognize the service to the country and his heroism but there has been a pattern here starting with senator mccain and his criticism. the naacp he says one of the greatest civil rights organizations in the country and i think it's earned that title without any question that went you look at where we are today in 2017 and 2016 every republican on this side of the aisle has a 25% at best on their

scorecard. you can blame then or us but when you look at the criticism there's more to do about the republican conservatives must be able to agree and the naacp than it is about jeff sessions so what i want to let the committee know is i voted for almost everybody that president obama appointed and visited with them on almost everything. i never doubted any of these people were bad people because they disagreed with me. the one thing i can tell the united states of america in my view that jefreview that jeff sa republican conservative who is a good and decent man who will follow th the law if he sees itr try to take the country down a different road than the president obama and his attorney general and that is what the whole election was about. you can't have it both ways.

there hasn't been one more decent and honorable. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me say at the outset this responsibility in the committee is one which i didn't anticipate when i ran for the senate but so often we are called on to judge other people to stand in judgment of those seeking position as judges and u.s. attorneys and marshals and even cabinet members. it puts to a test each one of us in terms of trying to be fair and honest and to anticipate what will happen if we n. trust

that person with a special responsibility. it's complicated even more when it involves a colleague and a someone you served with in my case 20 years and senator sessions. we've heard the speeches to the point we can give one another speeches. i certainly understand the philosophy and understand his values, political values. i would like to see a comment about the statement of john lewis. i can't believe that he would be

assigned any commitment to the racial equality but i also believe john lewis paid in blood on the edmund pettis bridge for his right to speak his opinion even if i disagree with it. even if you do and i think that is what you said, and i respect you for that. when he was dismissed by the president for his lifetime commitment to civil rights, i found that to be below the belt and unacceptable. this is day number 12 of the presidency and it is hard to believe or imagine that it's only been 12 days. as senator feinstein said, this new president has issued six executive orders and ten presidential memorandum, wide-ranging and the issues and the subjects of the address but

they should give us pause because in 12 days this is what we have two anticipate for the next three years, 11 months and 16 days. this isn't just a hearing on the nomination, an important nomination. this is a constitutional moment. this is a constitutional moment in a challenge to envision what the next attorney general welsh pacing and the remaining three years and 11 months with this president. back dubious about the vietnam war. the cabinet was being proposed and gravitated towards the marine corps generals hoping that there would be more and

more of them in the cabinet. and my reason for the case of general pettis and certainly in the case of general kelly, the government approved in to the integrity of the critical moment when they have to stand up for what will walk away from the job and we can expect nothing less in the military or in the cabinet and we can certainly expect nothing less when it comes to the attorney general of the united states of america. i join with the statements made by senator leahy about sally yates. as a prosecutor and a person i worked with closely in the department of justice, she is a person of character and integrity. what she did yesterday saying that she could not in good conscience understanding the law

of the land and the constitution in force executive orders of the president when it came to refugees and immigration that was consistent with what we have seen in the attorney general's of the past. they characterize it as the massacre and that they would know the parallel. it was a saturday night that led to the dismissal as special prosecutor in the department of justice because he, following the decision called on president nixon to disclose information and tapes that could be damning in that investigation. he chose instead to fire him or at least to order and the attorney general to fire him. in response, not only eliot richardson but archibald cox

resigned. that was a key constitutional moment at that time and decisions were made by people of integrity to stand up for the law and constitution even if it meant walking away from the office that they had been asked to hold. we can expect nothing less. mr. chairman, when senator sessions came to see me in my office, i was heartened by one thing. he didn't come in and tell me that he was the new jeff sessions that he had reinvented himself for this position. he didn't try to do that but we know one another quite well. not involve involve other refugd immigration i have to be question that based on what we have already heard from both

senator feinstein and senator leahy, this article in the "washington post" suggests that he was involved in directly but definitely involved. the directives that have the fingerprints were also on nearly all of them. it's the globalism and the term used on the extreme right for a threat to the united states by free trade and international alliances that the immigration we know that it was his former senior policy adviser steve miller who was credited with

offering these executive orders on the immigrants. we also know the deputy chief of staff was the longtime chief of staff in the senate and we know as well as has been stated, the mastermind behind the president's incendiary brand of populism chief strategist has for years been promoting the breitbart website. it said that jared kushner, the son-in-law and senior adviser considers senator sessions. in an e-mail in response to the request for the "washington post," steve describes him as a clearing house for policy philosophy in terms of the administration saying he and the senator are asked the center of the movement and the global internationalist phenomena.

the president referred to senator sessions as legendary. to suggest that he didn't have influence or impact on the executive orders is misleading. he had indirect influence at the highest levels. let's speak about those because i think it gets to the heart of why the nomination is so critically important today. it is often said that those in history are doomed to repeat it. and i recently learned something that i didn't know what should have known about the administration of franklin roosevelt in world war ii. i admire that ma the man for whd in america and led us through without trying war but i also came to know as a senate staffer as i might add the policies of the administration when it came to refugees and of the

immigrants were not admirable or right. a man by the name of broderick on the served as the nature of the -- major adviser in the fdr administration. a controversial man, and i quote from the book, his unwavering belief is all refugees were potential spies that constitute a menace to the u.s. national security. in this weather after slur comes she made it clear that he thought ill of anyone that didn't come from his social class, didn't think much of liberals coming eastern european scum and he despised jews most of all. to run afoul with his anti-immigration hysteria in those days often came with a

cost. he even interpreted the desire to allow british refugee children into the united states as an enormous psychosis on the part of the american people. hard to imagine in the administration that was the ceiling and what was the result? we know the story of the ss st. louis a ship with 900 trying to escape nazi germany came to the united states and was turned away. we know several hundred perished in the holocaust and that was the decision made for which many of us were saddened and hurt. so where are we today got a different america that after world war ii and the fact that we systematically excluded the jewish refugees during world war

ii we are in america that had refugees until now in a much different way. think about the hundreds of thousands of cuban refugees we have allowed into the united states proud that they are the fellow citizens in this country they were leaving a regime headed by fidel castro, the friend of our mortal enemy in the cold war and as they came to the united states did we do extreme bedding, no. they would become an integral part of america and they are represented here in the united states senate by three different colleagues. think about those that were jewish and the sovie in the sovo wanted to escape persecution. did we say stop you are russians and russianare russianand russi.

we are going to put you through extreme venting. nobodno we welcomed them to the united states and zimbabwe data. showing again who we are and what we stand for. it happened after vietnam after the fall of yugoslavia. it happened time and time again as we set an example for the world when it came to refugees and now where are we today? because of the executive orders of this president, he's called into question over a half-century commitment to accepting refugees from around the world, people who've been victims of persecution and genocide and terrorism and the war are to be excluded and is it because of a real threat to our country? exactly how many syrian refugees have been accused of terrorism in the united states of america? not one and when you do the history of the 40 years plus of all of the millions of refugees

that come to this country you can count on one hand those who have done us wrong and they were led into the country long before the process we now have in place. it is disgraceful the language that was used during the campaign by candidate donald trump when it came to refugees, disgraceful. i met with these refugee families and many have and i welcome those who were critical to take a few minutes and hear their stories and you will come to realize what is at stake is our reputation in the world. when president donald trump offers these executive orders offered by senator sessions, former staffers of course we have questions and we should. this is the heart of why we are

having this hearing and spending this time. since world war ii we tried to set a standard for the world and i am saddened 12 days into this administration president trump is trying to redefine america in the eyes of the world. much said in earlier comments about senator sessions work on criminal justice reform. i have a unique and personal perspective on that. senator sessions and i disagreed on a lot of issues. there was one we tried to work together on and achieved something. i cast of thousands of votes is a member of the house and senate and i'm proud of almost all of them but i'm embarrassed by one and i will tell you what it was because it should be a matter of record as we debate the nomination of senator sessions. turning to a book called white rage by carol anderson who

teaches at emory. i gave a copy of the book to senator sessions when he came by my office as i was hoping he might get a chance to read it. doctor anderson talks about 1986 when congress passed the anti-drug abuse act which stipulated mandatory sentencing and emphasized punishment overtreatment and created a 100-1 disparity in sentencing between crack and cocaine based on the myth that it was more effective than its powder form. i remember those days. i was in the house and it's also the time when a spectacular basketball player from maryland overdosed on cocaine and died. at the same time we were told there is a new form of cocaine on the street it is dirt cheap, lethal, addictive and if a pregnant woman uses it, she will cause incalculable harm to the

fetus and so i voted sad to say, i voted for this anti-drug abuse act of 100-1 sentencing and over the years i came to realize what a terrible mistake i made as we filled up prisons across america primarily with african-americans with long sentences under the mandatory sentencing of the law. so they brought the disparity from 100-1 to one to one. at the time senator graham stepped away. senator sessions reduced it 20-1 and was an improvement. i finally came down to a direct negotiation with senator. could he and i agree on a number to bring some justice to the

situation i can't tell you how we reached it but we did and that was the fair sentencing act and it said disparit that dispad be reduced from 101 to 18-1. that infected thousands of federal prisoners who were given a chance to have their prison sentences under th this old 1001 law reviewed individually by the judges and prosecutors to see if they would be allowed to be freed. many have the thousands of years in the federal system because of that though i cosponsored with senator sessions. it passed the committee and the floor of the senate by a voice vote and the same thing in the senate and the house judiciary committee and on the floor and it was signed in an almost private ceremony with senator sessions and i attended.

i then turned to senator sessions and said abou that what about those that are now serving time who cannot under our law as written have the right to appeal their sentence will you join me in a letter to the sentencing commission encouraging them to give these individual prisoners a chance and he said no. i didn't ask him to join me with senator grassley in the criminal justice reform bill which for the almost 5,000 of remaining prisoners they would give the individual consideration and he said no. so there was the shining moment we worked together to bring it to 18-1 but little or no follow-through when it came to what i considered to be the most consistent approach in dealing with justice and criminal sentencing. when senator sessions came by my office we talked about a lot of things that i talked especially about one prisoner that i

invited her to his hearing. he's from the city of chicago and he made a terrible mistake as a young man in chicago. he got involved in the street level sale of drugs and was arrested several times. the first two times he didn't spend a day in jail but the third time on his three strikes and you're out to sentencing at the age of 24 he was given a life sentence for the sale of drugs. fortunately in decembe december5 president obama commuted his sentence. at that time he had served 22 years in federal prison. under the obama administration, the justice department prosecutors were directed to that low-level offenders should use their discretion and not seek enhancements like the one that led to his life sentence.

senator sessions unfortunately strongly opposed the guidelines when it came to the clemency senator sessions fiercely criticized president obama's computations. he said and i quote they were issued in an unprecedented and reckless manner and in his words, senator sessions said so-called low-level violent offenders simply do not exist in the federal system. i said at the hearing and i will say today, senator sessions, made him and tell me that these low-level nonviolent offenders don't exist in the federal system. when it came to changing the law senator sessions led the opposition. he staunchly opposed using prosecutorial discretion commons and legislation to address thousands of people like him still serving on death sentences in federal prisons around the country but that doesn't leave

any optionmany options for brint a just outcome and it's a major concern i have as he seeks the office of attorney general. on the issue of civil rights, i feel this was a special intensity i was fortunate enough to chair a subcommittee on both civil rights and human rights committee on the judiciary committee. watching the passage of state law imposing the voter id and reducing the opportunity for early voting i took the subcommittee on the road. we went to ohio and florida and brought officials from both political parties, put them under oath and asked them point blank what were the instances of voter fraud in your state which led your state legislators to change the law and make it more difficult for people to vote in your state ta without exception they said there were none.

how many people were prosecuted in ohio or florida before you started demanding voter id virtually none. the effort to suppress the votes continues across america sponsored by some of the strongest special interest groups in the country. the decision that was made which changed the voting rights act and was appointed by senator sessions took away the authority that we had as a federal have il government to police the state law and make sure they didn't discriminate against people that were seeking the right to vote across the country. i listened to him say that it was good for the south that it was changed by the supreme court. i have no particular animus against anyone in any part of the country where there's an

effort we need to stand up and speak ou out for the first datey be involved in the north and south, east or west. i do not have confidence senator sessions as attorney general will do that and that is a troubling thing to say that one i'm sorry to say is a reality. i could go through other issues that have been noted, his views on torture, his votes on women's health. i agree on this extent there isn't one of us that hasn't been involved in a campaign where somebody took a vote and twisted it into something we never believed to be our true position but consistently time and time again senator sessions has voted against the protection for crime victims, women who were victims, native americans and so many

others. when senator leahy offered his basic resolution in this committee, or religion, we ha we a stork that simple choice were we going to stand behind the constitution that has for more than two centuries spelled-out in the simplest terms but the most important or position on religion? everyone on the committee but for vote on a bipartisan vote and one of them now seeks to be the attorney general of the united states. we are dealing with a ban on refugees and immigrants and a ban even the president has acknowledged on christian broadcasting shows preference for one religion over another and that is inconsistent with the values in this country and i have no confidence senator sessions will confront him in that grim reality. i would like to call the attention of the committee to

the testimony of michael casey who was called as a witness for senator sessions and testified under oath at his experience as attorney general of the united states. i didn't vote for him because of his position on torture but i respectfully tried to ask him questions and i went to the question about the russian involvement in the last election campaign and asked him specifically about the fbi investigation of the russian involvement in the campaign and with a brevity of words he said the fbi works for the attorney general. as attorney general did you have the authority to stop an fbi investigation? yes. so many of us wrote a set of questions to senator sessions afterwards was you use your power as attorney general to impede an investigation of the russian involvement in the last presidential election or stop such an investigation and do you

know what his answer was? he said he didn't have the time to read the unclassified intelligence memo that we have all read that summarized the russian involvement. that is either willful blindness or ignorance on his part not to realize the gravity of this. what happened on election day is a day that will live in cyber infamy. this was an attempt by a foreign power with values and consistent with the united states to change the outcome specifically to benefit the current president and to defeat hillary clinton. is that worth an investigation? i came to the senate 20 years ago as did senator sessions and when i arrived as a member of the government affairs committee, we were welcomed into a hearing chaired by fred thompson of tennessee, ranking member john glenn and the

question before us 20 years ago was the involvement of the government of china in the clinton and al gore campaign. we spent months in public hearings on that question because of some decision by the clinton campaign god forbid to accept the campaign checks from buddhist nuns there was nothing that pointed the involvement of the chinese government but we went on for months and months later for more reports were issued and yet look at the response of the republican majority now to the suggestion that the russians were involved in this presidential campaign, the fact that every major intelligence agency in the country has confirmed. do you see the same kind of anger and commitment and excitement? not at all. they dismissed it with a boys will be boys shrug. the only hope we ever have to

get to the truth of this is a thorough fbi investigation and now we are being asked to appoint an attorney general who will not give us his word that he will not stop such an investigation. pat toomey disqualifies him when it comes to this important responsibility so i come to this conclusion despite my personal relationships and i working with senator sessions, my respect for his family he is the wrong person for this job. we need someone with unquestionable strength, values and integrity who at that critical moment is prepared to stand up to this president or any president and say you are wrong and if you insist on doing this, i will re-sign. i cannot picture this man that has been described by the trump

advisors as legendary having the will or determination to do that and for that reason i oppose the nomination of jeff sessions as the attorney general of the united states. >> mr. chairman i remember senator specter when he was the center of the committee a few years ago made the observation, thank goodness we don't try people in the courts of law based on the flimsy and incompetent hearsay evidence we use in order to make public policy arguments here in the senate. i guess you could call them the alternative facts. our friends on the other side seem to be upset about the outcome of the election on november 8. i guess you could say they are going through the stages of

grief, denial, anger i think that is where they are right now. they haven't come to bargaining, depression or acceptance. they are angry and that is their right. is they don't have the freedom or the right to make up what would characterize the motivation and the way they have neither the nominee or a the administration. the democrats voted for the omnibus appropriation bill in 2016. the reason i bring that up as it had a travel ban. those from iraq, syria and other countries that were related to or involved in international terror. so, 37 democrats voted for a

travel ban from some of the same countries now that they are decrying as it is the subject of the executive order signed by president trump. i am glad that the secretary advised that to exclude the residence unless there is derogatory information to justify that. that is the right thing to do. but the outrage of some of the people that voted for a travel ban from some of the same countries is a little hard to take at face value. public backlash over the failure of the obama administration and the holder and lynch justice departments to simply enforce the law whether they are immigration laws or preferred to

kill terrorists rather than capture them and question them claiming that his a morally superior position. .. .... .... .... >> and properly drafted. for her to take the position it was her prerogative that the united states would not defend

the executive order in a court of law is completely unacceptable. so her choice was to either do her job or to resign and if she wouldn't do either one, i believe, president trump was entirely within his rights to fire her. and it is really a shame. i voted for her conformation. she has had a long and distinguished career and i high pressure not remember for this blemish on that long and distinguished career but for the good she has done. i said during the hearing on senator sessions that it really is a surreal to sit here and listen to colleagues attack someone we know permly and we served with for many years in the case of the democratic whip for 20 years. been here 15 years and served alongside senator sessions as

many of us have for a long, long time. this isn't just a question of what his record is. we know his record. we know his resume. but as i have said at his hearing, i said we know in his heart we know him to be a good and decent man. and the idea that because he voted for or against different policies as a legislature that he can't keep his oath to enforce the law is porportuous. i have served four years as the attorney general and now in the legislature and we all understand, since the founding of the country, what the differences are between the branches of government and the responsibilities of people who hold those offices. i have every confidence that

jeff sessions as the attorney general will enforce the law of the land. and all political and policy differences that our colleagues have on the other side i think is more a reflection of their disdain and their upset over the fact that president trump won the election and their preferred candidate did not. but the scene is vastly different back in 2009 when president obama was sworn no office. president obama was not my choice for president but he was my president. and he selected a cabinet. and we confirmed seven of them on the first day of his office. but now the tables are turned and our democratic colleagues have decided that resistance.

on the anger they are currently feeling and i hope they work their way to accepting the verdict of the american voter and the american people. and yes, hillary clinton won the poplar election but that doesn't make -- it is the electoral vote. they know that and keep bringing it up as it delegitmizes the winning. i hope our democratic partners will get past their anger and work with us. this boycotting of markups like we saw in the finance committee where he had two cabinet nominees that couldn't be even voted on because our democratic colleagues boycotted the markup and denied president trump two

more of his cabinet members. our democratic colleagues like to point to the fact there have been some missteps at the early stages of this administration. but one of the reasons i suspect is because he doesn't have his team in place. so nay continue to emphasis him. i will continue to support the nomination of jeff sessions. i believe he will restore the law from a justice department that has been ruled by the political arm of the previous administration for too long. just as i believe that president trump is a response to people's decision not to see a third term for president obama's policy in

a clinton administration that they see jeff sessions as an antidote. >> thank you. >> senator bloomenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to express my appreciation and join my colleagues in thanking you to give us the time we need on this. i will say there a few issues we will address more more important to this one. it is significant decision who will serve in this role because truly the attorney general of the united states is more than

just another law enforcement officer, more than just another lawyer, he must be the legal conscious for this station. he must have the independence and integrity to stand up and speak out when his boss, the president of the united states, is in violation of the law. and that is the tradition to the department of justice. it is the tradition that sally yates upheld and demonstrated when she spoke out to the president trump. the analogy has been made to the saturday night massacre during the watergate scandal. but there is a comparison to what james comey did when he was in the department of justice and faced with an executive order that he regarded as illegal and

he similarly said that he could not and would not infrs it and he went to the white house, was asked by then president george bush to come there and as a result president bush modified his stance. what is so tragically apparent here is that president trump is unwilling to consider the legal reasons that sally yates stood her ground and why that position, now more than ever, demands someone who is willing to stand for the rule of law and for constitutional principles. it isn't only sally wyates who

thinks there are constitutional questions about these executive orders. four court all around the country, independent of each other and any of us and any political organization, have also held they are unenforceab e unenforceable. and that is fwhaz violate our fundal constitution, our values as americans and our principles. we are not here to debate the constitutionality or legality or wisdom of those orders but the action that sally yates took is in the highest traditions of the department of justice and my fear and concern is that senator sessions will be unable or unwilling to stand up and speak

out and serve as a champion of those principles. he has to be more than just someone who follows the law as he promised us on numerous occasions during his testimony that he would do when faced with a difficult question he told us he would follow the law. the attorney general of the united states has to be an advocate and rights or liberties that are threatened every day in the country now more than ever. cabinet members are countable to him but they are also more importantly accountable to the american people. that is our task here to assure that accountability. no cabinet member has a greater

impact on the day to day lives of americans than the attorney general of the united states. he has sweeping authority. any of us who have served in the department of justice know that authority. any of us who have served as prosecutors know that authority. the power to charge someone with a crime, the power to impose orders that restrict liberty, the power to protect the innocent from unfounded charges that may shatter their lives even if they are acquitted is a power of awesome consequence. as the chief prosecutor in connecticut, reporting to the attorney general of the united states, and then the attorney

general of connecticut, i fought alongside and sometimes against the attorney general of the united states. robert jackson once said, and senator sessions paraphrased it during his testimony, that the job of the united states attorney general is not to convict but is to assure that justice is done. that is a sacred obligation. and he must be independent. that is an ideal not always realized in attorney generals but it is the goal we ought to strive to reach.

of integrity and a non-partisan but passionate devotion to the rule of law. we are seen over the past few days how disinstruct -- destructive anti-muslim orders can give rise to the violation of the rule of law. the bias and fear and hatred ushered with these orders is against our values. our nation is a nation of immigrants. all of our families have an

immigrant story. the orders harm families and children fleeing violence and oppression and seek refuge in this country. we are stronger because we are a beacon of hope and refuge to children and families. they have helped to shape and build our country. and this order will make us less safe. these orders provide a recruiting tool to isis by convincing young people who may be tempted to join their rank and that this country is engaged in a war with islam which is utterly untrue. it weakens us in a deeper moral sense. it is wrong for this country, devoted and founded on the ideals of welcoming people seeking that beacon of hope and protection of opportunity.

the rule of law protects us from these kinds of harm. and the rule of law protecting us from criminality within the united states and the threat of extremism is best served by encouraging people of other religions and faiths to come forward with information that will in fact enable effective policing. we have seen over these last few days impartial and steadfast districts upholding individual constitutional rights despite strong pressure from the president of the united states. and we have seen just last night what it truly means to serve at the department of justice and represent the american people and the constitution.

the watergate error demonstrates what happens when the rule of law is comppromised and my fear is we are threatened with a return to that era. when the department of justice is no longer an independent authority acting on behalf of the american people but just another enabler of the president's ongoing efforts to substitute hate full demography. now more than other the attorney general must be a person of independence and integrity and stand for the impartial rule of law. i have reviewed senator sessions full testimony and response and lack of response to the follow-up questions my

colleagues and i sent to him and i respectfully say i cannot support this nomination. at his conformation hearing senator sessions simply said he would follow the law. that he would enforce the law. but he must be a leader and not just a follower. at the hearing, and comments after, our republican colleagues have worked to make the case that senator sessions has no personal animosity toward minority groups and i have no doubt that is the case. but senator sessions' personal feelings are not what is at issue here. in protecting constitutional rights and liberties and pursuing justice he must be a champion. and senator sessions record

demonstrates a hostility and antipathy and even strong opposition to voting rights, women's health care, anti discrimination methods, religious freedom safeguards and a measure that passed the united states senate with 68 votes, a bipartisan majority, and he is opposed a criminal justice reform bill that attracted a group of 25 co-sponsors, republican as well as democrat. he split with the majority of his party to vote to reauthorize the violence against women act demonstrating in the reasons he articulated antipathy to important elements of these rights and protections.

he opposed hate crime prohibition. senator sessions views and possessi possessip positions have been out of the mainstream and there is that indicated he will be the constitutional champion that all of us, republicans and democrats, value in the attorney general. speaking true to power is important when it comes to conflicts of interest. president trump's vast business holdings and he has repeatedly refused to divest himself from them present an unprecedented threat of conflict of interests. should conflicts arise, the attorney general must be willing to maintain impartiality including appointing a special counsel or independent prosecutor if necessary.

we can all imagine scenario when this step might be necessary and to commit broadly to these principles is necessary from the next attorney general. and yet when i asked senator sessions about enforcement of cases against illegal conflicts of interest, involving the president and his family, such as violations of the stock act he equivalent. when i asked him about criminal wrongdoing which is owed more than $300 million by trump he equivicated. senator urban has rightly -- durbin -- pointed out the failing that equivication

represents. his answers to follow-up questions have been no better. these answers give me no confidence he will be the non-political enforcer against conflicts of interest and official self-enrichment the nation needs. as a moment when this administration faces ethical and legal controversy that is unprecedented in scope and scale as is the president's wealth. senator sessions' record over many years failed to demonstrate his core convictions and commitments necessary in the next attorney general. he husband failed to be that unshakeable, ethical voice that we need at this moment. that is necessary to protect and defend our constitution. back in 1986, the judiciary

rejected due to remarks and actions he took in a position of trust as united states attorney general in alabama. my judgment is not based on his record before then. it is on his record since. on voting rights, senator sessions has often condoned barriers to american, he has been a leading proponent of provisions in the voting rights act assuring african-americans can vote in his home state of alabama, and he has advocated for stricter voter laud citing

debunk claims. he regarded a court decision in shelby as good news in striking down some of those key provisions. on privacy, senator sessions has passionately opposed this long-standing american right which is enshirined and protects women's health care and personal decisions involving reproductive rights at a time when they face assault. he has continued to condemn roe v wade. equally disturbing, senator sessions has been supported by groups like operation rescue who defend the murder of doctors and criminalization of women. with him as attorney general,

american women would feel less secure in these rights. senator sessions has advocated using a religious test to determine which immigrants can enter this country. he as an advocate of a ban on muslims coming into the country during the past campaign. when this issue arose in committee, senator session was the only senator to argue forcefully for religious tests and against principles of religious liberty that have animated us since the founding. >> senator blumenthal, can you pull the mic closer to you? [laughter] >> i am happy to start over. >> bend it down like this.

bend the end of it down. i think i may have been more persuasive when you couldn't hear me. on citizenship, he husband considered eliminating birth right citizenship and that is the right that anyone born on our soil is a citizen of this country. we don't exclude people based on natio nationality of their parents or grandparents. with senator session as attorney general the trump administration would be encouraged in

attempting to deport american families who have raised families and spent their entire life here. senator sessions declined my invite and refused to use the information voluntarily voided by daca appplicants to deport them and their families. when a dreamer provides information to our government after being invited to come out of the shadows, this information should not be used to deport that person. as senator session as attorney general that sense of legal conscious would be lacking.

senator sessions has publically opposed marriage equality claiming i quote it weakens marriage end quote and even tried to eliminate protection for lgbtq americans in the runaway and homeless youth trafficking prevention act. he has repeatedly voted against steps to enhance enforcement against hate crime, violent salt assaults based on race, religion or sexual orientation. he even defended president trump's shocking admission on video of his pattern of engaging in sexual assault. senator sessions said public

figures should be judged on groups who support them. he has taken donations from a group who promotes the goal of obtaining a european majority in our society. neither important parts of senator sessions history was on the questionnaire he prepared for the judiciary committee. i gave him the chance to rebuke the racist groups and instead he doubled down saying that a man who has accused african-americans of excessive criminality and american muslims of extensive ties to terrorism

was quote a most brilliant individual end quote. i reach my decision to oppose this nomination with regret because senator sessions is a colleague and a friend to all of us. indeed i have come to like him and accept him through our colleagues and a number of shared experiences and common causes. he and i support law enforcement professionals. they serve our communities and nation with dedication and courage and they deserve and need our support. i believe individual corporate criminal should be pursued and i talked to him about the need for prosecuting corporate wrongdoing

because omit jail and individual responsibility are the most effective deterants against white coller crime. my disagreements with senator session stem from bedrock -- authority and supporting him for other positions. my objection is his nomination relates specifically to this particular essential, all-important powerful job. at this historic moment there is no doubt and can be no doubt about the responsibilities and immense power of the attorney general of the united states to be true to our values and our rule of law and to make sure

that the president is never above the law and never thinks he is above the law. reviewing his record i cannot assure the people of the country that jeff sessions would be a vigorous championship of these rights and liberties and i stand in opposition to his nomination. thank you, mr. chairman. >> before senator lee, we have a vote in 20 minutes so i would like to plan for the rest of this committee meeting. number one, i would like to keep the meeting going during so i hope republicans will take turn to go vote. republicans have spoken shorter times than democrats so if senator lee speaks about the usual time of republicans and

democrats start on a 30-minute speech you may want to think about letting a republican speak ahead of you. the other thing is we have had two-hour rule used against the finance committee. no democrats showed up at the finance committee so that the secretary of hhs could be voted out. i hope the way i have been running this committee we would have the fairness on the part of the minority to let this committee go beyond 2:00 so we could finish today. if there is a reason to invoke the two-hour rule, i would suggest just as soon as it could be conveniently called in the morning we will have a meeting of the committee and i will call for a role call vote just as soon as we get a corm because everybody knows how everybody is going to vote. out of the fairness i have given

to everybody to speak as long as they want to and that is how we will run the committee then i hope we can get done today. so, senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like many on this committee who have spoken today i have disagreed with senator sessions a lot. in fact, i have been here six years, just starting my second term and thinking -- >> i may have disagreed with senator sessions as often as i have disagreed with any other single member of this committee. probably more than i have disagreed with any other republican serving on this committee. shortly after i arrived in the senate six years ago, we had some of our first disagreements as we were dealing with the reauthorization of the usa pa i

patriot act and later the fisa agreement. and we disagreed on limiting the intrusiveness of u.s.-intelligence gathering activities relative to american citizens. we have continued to disagree on a number of things over the years. he introduced the freedom act signed into law by president obama that ended the warrantless practice of bulk metadata collection with regard to american citizens. senator session was a vocal opponent of the usa freedom act. senator sessions disagreed strongly with another top priority of mine which involves criminal justice reform.

senator durbin, senator white house and others who serve on this committee joined with me in pushing forward a number of efforts to receive the criminal justice act and he opposed us on those acts. senator sessions has disagreed with me on number of immigration reforms that i have supported. senator sessions opposed the work that i did with senator feinstein when we introduced the due process guarantee act which is designed to make sure that the u.s. government cannot indefinitely detain u.s. citizens on u.s. soil without violating a whole lost of rights. senator sessions has opposed efforts i have undertaken with senator leahe with regard to the

electronic communication law. a law that was passed at a time when no one knew what e-mail was outside of a few circles inside government, the military and a handful of elite universities. and the reports it gives the government is without a warrant under certain circumstances merely with the passage of time. senator sessions and i take different positions with regard to legislation supported by many including senator sessions regarding electronic communication transaction records. senator sessions and i have a fundamentally different view for the law toward a whole host of issues. on many of these issues we are dealing with topics that cut to the core of constitutional poli policy, the spirit if not the letter of what the constitution requires. and yet, in this entire time that i have been at the united

states senate serving with senator session, with whom i have disagreed more times than i can count. i mentioned just a few of the stances he and i have disagree. i have never once sensed any view of disrespect toward me or views of my colleagues. as reflecting hostility toward the rights of americans or combrae group. i have never seen senator sessions refer to a colleague --

i cannot say the same for anybody in this body. i don't know i have worked with another person who has a greater respect for the opinions of others, who has a greater capacity to respect the fact that people of good will and strong intellect can come to different conclusions whether in government or other context as to how to solve a particular problem. even when he disagrees with the rule. this is what i believe is the kind of human being we need to

serve as the attorney general of the united states especially when as is the case with senator session these characteristics are bound up in a package of a man who has devoted his entire life to the law, to enforcing it, protecting it and defending and as a lawmakers improving it. whether you agree with him or not, this is a man, senator sessions, who as u.s. attorney in alabama, as attorney general of the state of alabama, and as a u.s. senator has shown over and over again that he has a deep and abiding love and respect for the law and the constitution of the united states, that he as a deep commitment to the notion that the rule of law shows our laws consist of words and those words have meaning. you have to respect each word in

order to respect the law and in order to guarantee ours is a system that operates under the rule of law whether than the will of individual human beings. this is part of what makes it so important to have someone who is independent in his dna, who has the spirit of respect for the rule of law and the willingness to do what is right even when it is difficult. i have never seen senator sessions blindly defer to what is easy, blindly follow those

who would like to have them following them simply because they ask for it. he doesn't do that. that is not his style or something he is capable of. senator sessions is someone who studies out each issue on his own, on its own merits, and then makes a decision for him self. there are very few people i know who have this characteristics but senator sessions has it. this is the kind of thing we would want our attorney general to be able to do. senator sessions himself acknowledged the need for independence during his hearing. i liked the way he put this. he said the attorney general quote would have to resign before agreeing to execute a policy that the attorney general believes would be unlawful or unconstitutional close quote. he means this. i know he means it. and i know he is capable of living up to it because this is how he has conducted himself in

the united states senate. this is the kind of person we need as our next attorney general. i want to college each of my colleagues against the instinct to accuse or imply an accusation just because they disagree with you. respect for the rule of law itself and the due process that produces good law, i think requires us to do better. but to accuse someone of having

hus tailty toward the rights of the american people, or antipathy simply because that person doesn't share your view that a particular legislative solution might be the best course of action to take in that area. senator sessions is imminently qualified for the position and would be one of the most experienced well prepared attorney general in the history of the united states after he is confirmed for this position. for this reason, i am be supporting his conformation and voting enthusiastically yes. thank you. >> next up? senator combs is next. in nine minutes i will go vote

so one of my colleagues chair while i am gone and i will come right book. senator coons. >> thank you, chairman grassley, members of the committee. i appreciate to opportunity to weigh in on our deliberations about the nomination of senator sessions to serve as attorney general of the united states. i have gotten to know senator sessions in our six years of service together on this committee and through other vehicles and i believe serving as attorney general of the united states is different than serving as senator. these are different roles with different priorities. i will say senator sessions and i have worked constructively together on this committee and on several important matters including the reauthorization of the victims against child abuse

act but we have also disagreed about many issues fundamental to our values and direction of this country. how is the office of attorney general of the united states different from the office of the u.s. senate? i think that is -- >> we don't have a corm. we have to have at least six people. anybody in the back room that makes the corm? >> you could ask consent to speak if you want to continue and we can continue. >> mr. chairman, it is your desire we all recess to all go vote? in the absence of the corm is the tradition of the committee to continue with deliberations. >> you can speak. >> okay. we are one senator short of a

coquoru quorum. i prefer to speak with a quorum present, if possible, mr. chairman. >> okay. we stand at ease that we get a quorum or we don't meet at all. it is my preference to get done today or tomorrow. >> we could go in vogue and come back and round up some members, maybe? >> if people in the majority don't know the importance of this meeting how can we expect the minority to consider the

impori importance of the meeting. >> my understanding is several members are very close. >> okay. i see six. proceed with your speech. >> thank you very much, chairman and i appreciate the presence of a quorum. i was beginning with the dist t distinction of serving in the senate versus the attorney general. the attorney general has tremendous power and influence to chart the strategy and priorities of the justice department and the deployment of its resources when include over a 100,000 employs and a more than $27 billion budget. it has been said it is the most potent force against justice.

>> senator, i thought six was what it took for you to speak. it is actually seven so we have six of you here. so you should probably just stop for a minute and we will just see what happens here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am sure senator mcconnell will make sure people will know how important this meeting is.

okay. we have seven present. would you proceed and feel free to not start over but let us know where you left off. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i began asserting that although senator session and i work well together on the senate the role of the attorney general is a fundamentally different one and i will pick up on where i left off on that inquiry. the attorney general must be prepared to fight for, stand up for the vulnerable in our society, advance civil rights, to move. the attorney general must be prepared to defend the rule of law against pressure from powerful forces including even at times the president himself. i approach my responsibilities to consider senator sessions as

a member of the senate judiciary committee with appreciation to the this role to our democracy. this is an obligation we all have. i reviewed his 30-year record. we heard from sessions as well as advocating and community leaders. i heard from republicans and democrats all across the state who gave significant input. this careful review of senator sessions' record has left me concerned about his commitment to core responsibilities as the

leader. i am troubled by senator sessions' record on a series of issues and let me summarize across a range of them. on civil rights, senator sessions criticize dd protectios against the lgbtq and among the disabled. in criminal justice, a number of us have worked on advancing criminal reform. he has supported a growing number of sentences after we have recognized this doesn't

make us safer as a whole. on protections against domestic violence, senator sessions voted against the violence against women's act which has helped millions of women and saved untold numbers of lives. on immigration, senator sessions has taken a particularly hardline stance that is outside the mainstream of either party. he was the leading opponent of comprehensive immigration reform bill and worked on it at great length and he has expressed support for laws that have found to be unconstitutional. senator sessions on the topic of religious freedom was one of the very few republicans on this committee who voted against the amendment expressing a sense of the senate that quote the united states must not bar individuals from entering into the united states based on their religion. senator sessions was an early

defender of then donald trump's muslim ban. he has repeatedly opposed efforts to protect the protection of american cities. on torture, he splits with the mainstream and voted against the detainee treatment act and was in the minority voting against the amendment sponsored by senator mccain to prohibit interrogation techniques not authorized by the manual. on voting rights, senator sessions has referred to the voting rights act as intrusions and praised the shelby decision as quote good news for the south quote. i thought it important that i read some from a very long

letter from greta scott king who did not have the opportunity to testify when senator sessions was considered for a federal judgeship and i believe there is value in hearing what her words were at that time even today. and i will read just a few excerpts. this is is from 1986. i quote sieve right leaders have fought long and hard. mr. sessions has used the power of his office to chill the exercise of the vote by blacks for the district he serves as the federal judge. his conduct as u.s. attorney toward criminal violations of civil rights law indicates he lacks the temperament and

fairness to be a federal judge. it is important to the democracy of the united states and i was privileged to join martin and others during the selma march and martin was impressed boy the determination of getting the blacks in selma and neighboring per perry county. i am skipping. martin anticipated they would remain in perry county long after. this league started by mr. turner and others as martin predicted continue to direct the drive for votes. in the years since the act was pass, black americans have made important strides in the struggle to participate actively in the electoral process. the number of blacks to vote in key states has doubled and that would not be possible without the act.

blacks fall short particularly in the south efforts are made to continue to deny blacks access to the polls even where they make up the majority of the voters. it has been a struggle to keep up the most -- a person who has rejected to the exercise of those rights should not bow elevated to the federal bench. i am skipping to the conclusion. free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to american democracy that we cannot tolerate any form of infringe: none have struggled or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than its black citizens. no group has had access to the ballot box denied so persistently and intently. over the past century, a broad array of schemes have been used to block the black vote. the range of techniques run the gamut from the state forward

application of brutality against black citizens who tried to vote to legalized fraud as the grandfather exclusion and rigged literacy tests. the actions taken by mr. sessions from the voter fraud prosecution represent just one more technique used to intimidate black voters and deny them the most precious franchises. they were conducted in the in the black belt countries. wits have been using the absentee process for years and then when blacks realizing their strength began to use it criminal investigations began. this letter from greta scott king goes on but i thought brief part was accurate to submit. we must take into account the decade of actions taken by many to block access oo the ballot

and the real and serious concerns it raises for me about senator sessions' nomination. overall, his record on torture, civil liberties, religious freedom, immigration, criminal justice reform, voting rights, is deeply concerning especially when considered in the context of the role of the attorney general of the united states who directs the civil rights division, national security division and many other critical offices. i asked senator sessions several questions for the record to better understand this position and better examine his record and assess how we would act as attorney general. i asked questions are regard to hue issues including president trump's false claim millions of people voted illegally, including views on birthright

citizenship and changes to rules of criminal procedures. senator sessions admitted he had not conducted research and i found these responses to be frustrating coming from someone who has served as a public official for three decades. ....

i am concerned that this response and totality of leaves open the possibility of the internment of citizens. the episode in the mass incarceration is a chapter we should never revisit and i've looked for more clarity on this vital question. i also asked senator sessions both in the hearing and in the writing about the unconstitutional use of the post to punish prisoners in alabama during senator sessions tenure as the attorney general of alabama. in my written questions i point out again after having pressed him on this in our personal meetings in hearing.

senator sessions has refused to explain what his view is and why he didn't intervene to stop this unconstitutional practice while he was the attorney general and the state of alabama. i also asked in writing senator sessions view of the office of the legal counsel's opinion whether he agrees that we should provide and i quote candid advice even when that advice may be inconsistent in the divisive policy makers. they are inconsistent with the desires of policymakers. when i asked senator sessions whether the religious institutions in particular such as mosques should be targeted for the warrantless surveillance he chose to answer a different question.

they haven't yet received responses that the pressing matters deserve we shouldn't proceed to a vote until the questions have been answered. finally, president of trump's te five actions in the last day shine a brighter spotlight on the following responsibility of the department of justice and the critical need for the independent attorney general that can reach their own conclusions and when necessary stand up to the present. last wednesday he signed executive orders that include plans to build a costly wall of the southerwallopthe southern bd announcing a massive expansion of interior enforcement. improvements in border security and immigration enforcement are in the country's interest. the comprehensive immigration

bill would have read invested in the security enforcement through the series of targeted and effective actions. that bipartisan effort never left the house in any small part because the members were focused on defeating it. building a physical wall on the southern border is nothing more than an expensive symbol of fear and insecurity that comes at the expense of a more thoughtful bipartisan immigration policy and approach to border security. the toxic rhetoric around these orders is weak and the relationships with some of our vital allies. we are over targeting the sanctuary cities and localities between the wall and force it but threatens to take the funding from vital state and local law enforcement functions and limits officers and elected officials he ability to determine how best to keep their own communities safe. he's reached an executive security to fear immigrants the

least of which the dreamers but have only known america as their home and contribute in so many ways and are scared they will permanently lose everything. one of these dreamers served in afghanistan and testified at the hearing with senator sessions nomination. he represents the best of who we are and testified that because of senator sessions policies, he was concerned about his future should he be the attorney general. attorney general. the most recent executive orders e-echo the champion in the senate by senator sessions. just on friday president trump issued an order that closed doors to refugees and targeted travelers from seven muslim majority nations and ignored the reality that the soldiers have been serving side-by-side with translators from several of the nation's that individuals from the nations are contributing to the communities as doctors and

scientists, graduate students, entrepreneurs in the wake of the most recent order to refugees have violence and persecution unable to enter the united states even those that have completed years of vetting and waiting. individuals present in the united states were detained in the u.s. airports and a pair and violation of the court orders and in my view have been targeted because of their religion, denied access to lawyers and separated from their families. i publicly decry these as being illegal, un-american and unconstitutional the way that they have earned the criticism from around the world and made us less safe. then yesterday the acting attorney general demonstrated the courage required of the independent attorney general and refusing to use the power of the department to defend thi this unlawful executive order she devoted her career to the pursuit of justice and served in the most 27 years prosecuting

white-collar fraud. president trump called her week on borders and he fired her. the signal to the attorneys and the next attorney general couldn't be more clear. now more than ever it will be of paramount importance to have an attorney general who can win called for recessed the forces that stand on the side of justice. given all the reasons in his record of service in the senate and in a state of alabama's attorney general and u.s. attorney, i do not believe senator sessions is the right man for this incredibly difficult and important time he must be a leader in the battle for equality and a defender in the rule of law even under the enormous pressure. after carefully reviewing and

considering the public service it is my judgment senator sessions have been taken sufficient actions to demonstrate his commitment to lead the department of justice critical work thank you for the opportunity to offer these remarks today. >> thank you. i appreciated the discussion. it seems to me we are setting a new standard for just about nobody could overcome to be nominated and confirmed for a cabinet position. as it has been stated, i agree often with senator sessions and i disagree often i was on the other side of the immigration bill. we battled on that for a long time but like senator lee i always found the senator although he disagreed with my position to be courteous and thoughtful and not at all demeaning to those that have different views.

on the sentencing reform and other issues i've differed with him and the same applies here. when we consider loretta lynch in this committee, it wasn't a popular position to take in favor of her in my home state was me tell you, but she was qualified. i disagreed with her almost every issue but she was qualified. and i fear that if we continue to have this kind of standard, no president will ever be able to fill his or her cabinet so i would enthusiastically support his nomination, and i would vote to confirm senator sessions. he is qualified and he is a good man. i yield back.

>> i would like to join my colleagues in making remarks on the nomination. i've been pleased to work successfully with senator sessions on a number of issues over the years such as adoption and human trafficking. i respect his efforts to answer my questions and i also acknowledge since he has provided written responses to more questions at the same time his records and his views on a critical issuthecritical issuese including the bullying rights, justice against women act, immigration have led me to conclude i cannot support his nomination. i think that the violence against women act is particularly concerning to me. the vast majority of senators voted for the bill and all democrats and republicans voted for that bill and to me, that is

one of the major issues i have taken on over the years as the attorney and abandon the senate and it disappoints me greatly because i think that the reason which was the tribal jurisdiction issue i have had so many tribes in my state that had trouble getting anyone to prosecute the cases and we simply allow for the dual jurisdiction when someone committed an act of violence on the reservatio revelation that a member of the tri- band that didn't make sense to me. the voting rights act is another area. it became law more than 50 years ago and we have made progress but the recent actions to cut back on voting i think is not consistent with where the country should be. my state had the highest voter turnout in the last election, and it actually turned the legislature republican. i see that they have a high voter turnout and that is more of a republican state. hi voter turnout in places like

vermont has me beat on the other way. the point is the high voter turnout states tend to have rules that are easier for people whether it is seemed a registration or less restrictive voting and i do not understand why we would be limiting voting. and i think i want to jump the department to take that on as a priority. one issue i want to focus on today which i raised in senator sessions hearin hearings the fundamental importance of the freedom of the press. my dad was a newspaper man, so i am especially sensitive to and concerned about maintaining the role as a watchdog. but on the larger note, it is critical to the nation's democracy. that's why the founders tried freedom of the press and the first amendment. thomas jefferson said that the first objective should be to leave open all avenues of truth and the most effective way of doing that is through the freedom of the press.

these values are more important now than ever. we have someone in the white house but said that the press should keep its mouth shut and i think that is not the attitude we should have about something that is enshrined in our constitution. senator sessions here i asked him whether he would follow the standards known address when they should subpoena journalists record and serve to protect and engage in the newsgathering activities. to the attorney general both when they were simply doing their job. and we didn't get that commitment at the hearing. when i asked about it, i was told by the senator that he had studied those regulations. senator sessions also raised concerns in the past and opposed the free flow of information act, so i have concerns with air. another issue where senator sessions pledged to keep the antitrust division away from

politics, i think very important. so i think i will put my statement on the record as the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee last year when the attorney general said his agency was revealing deals that never should have made it out of the corporate boardroom, we've seen more and more mergers whether it is in healthcare or communications. if he is confirmed as the attorney general, how important it would be to work to continue to review the deals and undo the economic power and the income inequality. it's something that the antitrust enforcement has been used to keep in even playing field. i think it is very important. i am concerned about the status of the cost program and i fled back bill along with senator

murkowski and i asked the president of the order of the police in the hearing that shared my views but it's a very important program and we will be reintroducing the bill if it is another priority for the department of justice. i believe there is a pending vote and i will return after my colleagues have an opportunity to speak. i also am concerned by the actions last night and whether we are going to have independence when it comes to legal decisions after the way the refugee order was drafted with very little legal input and has now become chaos and a miss. that isn't good for the administration when trying to get input from the law enforcement and from the justice department and attorney general.

i know where that they are not in the drafting of that order but i do believe it is something that we need to further pursue and make sure that going forward there is opportunity when something that affects millions of people who cross the that there is more input. with that i yield the floor and they would say if confirmed, i will do all i can to work with him and the people of my state. >> senator dallas. >> i used to have a direction for the folks in the caucus on the particularly pretentious matter and if it's already been said, don't say it again. so i will not repeat what has been said by some of my colleagues except to say i like to associate myself with senator cornyn.

i think that the discussion here seems odd in that we are judging senator sessions with whom i have several disagreements as a legislator or lawmaker. >> would you ask to continue to speak because of -- is there any objection? >> object. >> i will stay here and hopefully get back at everybody come back very fast. tell every republican that this is a very important meeting. the attorney general lisa last night was a problem and we need to be here as republicans to get the job done. stand at ease until we get a